I find General Pal on the indian side credible, he believes india actually lost the war on strategic terms.
And I agree with you.. Kargil gave an opportunity to India to not just push out the Pakistani army from the posts it occupied in the winters but also inflict significant diplomatic and international political damage on Pakistan, which the Indian govt refrained to inflicting.. Thats what the good general is refering to and I agree with him.. Our political leadership always chases the elusive dream of peacefully coexisting with Pakistan and never learns from its past mistakes..
I just wanted everyone to make sure they watched these videos because it will do 1 thing for sure, it will prove this Indian guys credibility and his abilities to lie, post BS and attempt bluffs. Nowhere in this video does the General say that the Indian Military had cornered Pakistani Army at any point, infact for 1965 he states the fact that it should not have been a stalemate as we were in a better position and for Kargil he says that the fighters fought beyond anybody's imagination to the point where even the Indian Military had to applaud their heroics!
No one has ever debated that the pakistani military men in kargil did not have their share of heros.. That is certainly not a point of debate of discussion.. All armies do.. But do listen to him from 6:30 onwards in the second video and also the Nazam Sethi video I posted subsequently..
Another Intereting tid bit on the same misadventure of Mian Musharraf.. This time an American POV..
This is an excerpt from the book by Strobe Talbot, the former senior U.S. Department of State official, who was in the room with Bill Clinton when the U.S. president received Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, then the Pakistani prime minister, who came to see Clinton regarding the war in Kargil:
former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbot writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. ' Clinton came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,' and told Sharif, 'If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail. If you proceed with this line, I will have no leverage with them. If I tell you what you think you want me to say, I will be stripped of all influence with the Indians.' '
I am not - and the Indians are not - going to let you get away with blackmail, and I will not permit any characterization of this meeting that suggests I am giving in to blackmail,'
Talbot writes, adding, Clinton also refuted Sharif's accusation that the Indians were the instigators of the crisis and intransigents in the ongoing standoff.
When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions. Seeing they were getting nowhere, Clinton told Sharif he had a statement ready to release to press that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan . 'Sharif was ashen.' 'Clinton had worked himself back into real anger - his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched.
He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces (U.S. had received intelligence Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces for attack against India) for action,'
Talbot says in his book. '
Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally' and denied he had given any order with regard to nuclear weaponry. Taking a break, Clinton spoke to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over phone and told him what had happened until then. 'What do you want me to say?' Vajpayee asked. 'Nothing,' Clinton replied, he just wanted to show he was holding.”